Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2023)

Richborough agrees with the assertion that sites in the urban core area are likely to have greater viability constraints due to costs associated with demolition and site remediation as well as the usual obligations relating to the provision of affordable housing and infrastructure requirements. A Viability Assessment which considers the whole plan, including the ability of sites to meet requirements in respect of sustainable construction, accessibility and dwellings standards should be undertaken.
Whilst urban regeneration schemes help deliver housing in sustainable locations and at higher densities, the lead-in times for urban sites where there are technical or ownership challenges to overcome can impact the rate of housing delivery. Too much reliance on urban sites in the Local Plan trajectory should be avoided, as much needed housing may be slow to be delivered.
Richborough also questions the suggested capacity of sites in the urban area given the Council’s clarification that 109 of the housing sites in this area have not been proposed by landowners or promoters and cannot therefore be classed as available (paragraph 3.1.5 of the LAA Interim Report). These sites have most likely been available for several years without development coming forward despite Development Briefs being prepared and rising house prices in the areas generally. Many of these sites also currently appear to be in alternative uses with no certainty they will come forward at all. There does not appear to have been any consideration of implications for current uses. The Stage 2 Assessment will clearly need to rigorously assess the urban sites given the breadth of constraints in respect of suitability, availability and viability concerns.

Richborough acknowledges the reference to the requirement for new development to be sensitive to the designated historic features in the urban area of Chatham. It is critical to the protection of the local historic character that new development is of a high quality and sensitively designed to complement the historic features in situ. The holistic development of the urban area will be critical to achieving this and will inevitably impact on the lead in times and delivery rates of new dwellings within this area.
Richborough notes that the urban area is also affected by the Marine Conservation Zone and includes the historically politically sensitive Chatham Waterfront. It is critical that the emerging Local Plan rigorously assesses the suitability of sites in this area and whether they can be developed sustainably and viably, as well as deliver the typology of housing for which there is a need.

Richborough supports the clear intention to transform the Borough’s poor track record on housing delivery by seeking to meet identified needs and the acknowledgment that this will lead to “the transformation of urban centre and waterfront areas and large-scale development in suburban and rural areas”.
Richborough supports the strategic approach to the distribution of development referred to in this statement, which recognises that the scale of housing need will have transformational impacts across the entire Borough. Richborough is of the view that the identified needs can only be met if development is allocated across a range of areas, including those where development is most viable and not solely focusing on the Hoo peninsula and urban locations. This is particularly the case since the withdrawal of the HIF funding.
The paragraph refers to the Land Availability Assessment identifying a capacity for 38,200 homes which will proceed to the next stage of detailed assessment. Richborough supports the intention to assess these sites rigorously and agrees that given the Borough-wide constraints in regard to environmental considerations, infrastructure requirements and viability, many of these sites will not be found to be suitable, available or achievable.
Richborough is also of the view that rigorous viability work needs to be provided that tests all modified development management policies, including changes to Building Regulations and likely changes to the NPPF, so as to clearly evidence that they do not result in onerous requirements that would prohibit much needed sustainable development being brought forward.

Richborough is of the view that the figures included in the sources of supply at Figure 2 and paragraph 5.13 remain to be adequately evidenced.
A pipeline of sites with planning permission for over 7,500 homes is referenced in paragraph 5.13 of the Consultation Document. However, it has not been possible to find any detail or evidence of this pipeline in the documents supporting the current consultation. Paragraph 68 of the NPPF requires strategic policy-making authorities to have a clear understanding of the land available in their area through the preparation of a Land Availability Assessment (LAA). This should take account of the availability, suitability and likely economic viability of sites and specify those that are ‘deliverable’ in years 1-5 and ‘developable’ in years 6-15.
Richborough understands that a LAA is being prepared but detailed evidence of the pipeline of sites should be made available as soon as possible, given that this information already exists, in order to ensure that the supply is deliverable and developable.
Figure 2 identifies a projected windfall allowance of 3,000 homes up to 2040.
Windfall development is defined in the Glossary of the NPPF as “sites not specifically identified in the development plan”. Paragraph 70 also provides background to windfall development and sets out the following guidance on when an allowance might be appropriate:
“Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends.”
Furthermore, in order to be justified and avoid double counting with sites included as commitments within the supply, any annual windfall allowance can only be factored in three years after the base date. It has been assumed that the current base date of the supply is 1 April 2023, and therefore a windfall allowance can only be included from the year 2026/2027. However, if the Local Plan is ultimately not adopted until 2026, which seems likely, then the windfall allowance should only be added from 2029/2030.
Therefore, given the requirement of NPPF Paragraph 22 for Local Plans to look ahead fifteen years on adoption, it has been assumed that the windfall allowance can only be applied for twelve years of any plan period, at the most.
On this basis, the proposed windfall figure of 3,000 dwelling equates to a likely annual allowance of 250 dwellings per annum.
Whilst historic levels of windfall development may have exceeded that figure in the recent past this is likely to be a result of the fact that there hasn’t been an up to date Local Plan for over ten years and for much of that time the authority has not been able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites. Richborough is of the view that any assessment of historic windfall development should be cognisant of such matters and should only include an allowance where it is possible to demonstrate that windfall will continue to be a reliance source of supply in the future.
Richborough consider the Council has failed to recognise the effect on housing delivery of a newly adopted Local Plan with deliverable residential allocations. The change in the strategic Policy position on adoption of a new Local Plan in Medway will radically increase the level of investment into the Borough’s housing market and increase the number of houses being built with support provided by an allocation. The result of this is that there should be a smaller windfall allowance. The previous trends in respect of windfall delivery relate primarily due to the datedness of the current Plan and the failure of Medway to progress a replacement.
Figure 2 also identifies that there is a requirement to identify residential allocations totalling 19,173 dwellings. Together with the figures for the pipeline of sites with permission and the windfall allowance, both of which Richborough have requested further evidence in order to justify, the overall supply totals just 29,756 dwellings. This exceeds the housing need figure of 28,500 dwellings by just 1,256 dwellings, which provides flexibility of less than 5% for non-delivery of the pipeline, windfall or allocations. This excludes the potential requirement to meet the needs of Gravesham. As previously referenced, the historic under-delivery of housing in Medway has been well below the relevant annual requirement, which confirms that the current supply of housing land is not flexible enough to ensure that land is brought forward at sufficient pace. This has led to issues in respect of affordability of housing and Richborough considers the need for additional flexibility be built into the emerging land supply to ensure the timely delivery of housing across the Borough throughout the Plan Period. Given the level of infrastructure which is required to deliver the future allocations combined with the track record of the supply trajectory, Richborough is of the view that the supply resilience buffer should be at least 10%, and potentially as high as 15%.
This is in addition to a non-implementation discount which should be considered for sites in the urban area and those on the Hoo Peninsula, which are constrained by viability and the need for significant levels of infrastructure.
Given the long term lack of housing delivery, Richborough is also of the view that the emerging Local Plan should make provision for a stand-alone policy which relates to the monitoring of housing delivery. This should include provision for identified ‘contingencies’, where it is apparent that delivery rates are falling short of what is anticipated. This will formalise a positively prepared approach to monitoring housing delivery and stimulating action where necessary.
Granting planning permission for additional new homes is likely to be the most effective way to address any delivery of housing and the contingencies should therefore include the release of previously identified ‘reserve’ sites.
Richborough is therefore of the view that Medway Council should allocate additional sites and reserve sites in the Plan that could be released if monitoring continued to show under delivery. This would enable the issue to be addressed promptly, without the need for a full or partial review of the Plan.
Richborough is of the view that the monitoring policy should clearly establish that if monitoring shows that the Plan is not delivering housing as required, then Medway will grant permissions for additional housing; release reserve sites; and undertake other actions to help bring schemes forward, in that order. The Policy wording should also set strict deadlines for publication of monitoring each year and failure to do so would trigger the contingencies. The end of the calendar year is a reasonable time frame for monitoring data to be collected and published and should be identified as the deadline within the Policy. It is important for any under-delivery of housing to be addressed as soon as possible.

The Duty to Cooperate was introduced by the Localism Act 2011 and is set out in section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2023) confirms that local planning authorities are under a duty to cooperate with each other on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries (Paragraph 24) and identify relevant strategic matters that need to be addressed in their plans (Paragraph 24). Paragraph 26 confirms that:
“Effective and on-going joint working between strategic policy-making authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy. In particular, joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary, and whether development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular plan area could be met elsewhere.”
Richborough is of the view that it is imperative that Medway Council undertake discussions with neighbouring authorities at the earliest possible stage. This is particularly the case with Gravesham given the extent of Green Belt within the Borough.
Richborough expects further information to be published in this respect as discussions with neighbouring authorities continue, although it is prudent at this early stage of Local Plan preparation to accommodate and make allowances for the potential 2,000 additional homes that may be required to meet Gravesham’s needs.

Reference is made to potential impacts of new development on the environment, especially the designated habitats and landscapes which form a large part of Medway’s area.
These include the Kent Downs AONB, as well as the Medway Estuary and Marshes Ramsar, Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar; Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSS; and Tower Hill to Cockham Wood SSSI.
The ability to deliver significant levels of residential development sustainably alongside these important designations will need to be evidenced. Richborough is of the view that the second stage of the Land Availability Assessment (LAA) will need to assess how the residential development of each site can viably protect against the erosion of these features. Richborough is also of the view that Medway Council should look to develop a site selection methodology which prioritises sites which minimise impact on these key ecological designations.

Paragraph 5.7 references highway network constraints, including those associated with the Strategic Road Network (SRN), particularly M2 Junction 1.
Richborough consider that the issues raised by National Highways do not preclude appropriately located and planned growth across the north of the borough, and support the prioritised action by Medway Council, working alongside neighbouring authorities and wider stakeholders, to deliver appropriate mitigation. Such mitigation being likely to include both physical infrastructure improvements, as well as ensuring that proposed allocations can facilitate a reduction in the need to travel by private car, in line with DfT Circular 01-2022.

Richborough supports the reference to the need to demonstrate that the growth strategy is deliverable, to provide certainty and confidence in Medway’s growth.
In accordance with the proposed strategy it will be critical for supporting evidence base documents to interrogate the viability of delivering sites at the density suggested and to thoroughly test the estimated delivery timescales of sites within the trajectory based on the level of infrastructure provision required. While there is no information available as to the delivery of the committed sites, the estimated delivery timescales for emerging allocations will need to factor in the speed with which strategic infrastructure works can be completed.
The viability of the proposed allocations should also comprehensively address the response to the loss of HIF funding for infrastructure improvement schemes, originally awarded to help deliver housing on the Hoo peninsular. While some development in Hoo may still be considered suitable, adequate evidence will need to be provided to show how sites can viably and sustainably come forward whilst also providing obligations to the necessary infrastructure improvements.

Paragraph 5.4 of the Consultation Document recognises that there is a housing crisis, particularly regarding affordability. Richborough is of the view that this is particularly the case in Medway with the Office for National Statistics median affordability ratio (household income to average house price) showing that affordability has worsened from 5.73 in 2014 to 8.65 in 2022. Whilst the Consultation Document refers to these issues, the proposed resolution is not clearly stated.
Issues with regard to the affordability of dwellings within Medway are also highlighted in the Local Housing Needs Assessment (2021), included in the Local Plan evidence base. Table 3.1 of the Assessment identifies that house prices in Medway, when compared with neighbouring authorities, increased at a much higher rate between 2000 and 2020. A change of 257% is the second highest of the six authorities included within the comparison and is significantly higher than the South East average of 218%. There are clear signals present within Medway in regard to affordability which should be factored into to identifying the housing requirement.
As referenced elsewhere, in the nineteen years since the Medway Local Plan was adopted in 2003, overall housing completions have only exceeded the housing requirement figure that was in place at the time in only three years, and the three most recent monitoring years have seen the highest deficits. The cumulative under supply of housing since 2003 is 4,955 dwellings.
In respect of affordable housing completions, the annual need figure has not been met once since 2006 (the highest year was in 2008 and still saw a deficit of 305 dwellings) and the cumulative deficit in affordable housing over the 19 year period (2003-2021) is 10,012.
The emerging Local Plan housing requirement clearly needs to reflect both the worsening affordability and the previous poor housing delivery rates. These factors point to the need for a significant increase in the number of houses to be planned for.
Richborough supports the use of the standard method calculation for establishing local housing need as a starting point for calculating the housing requirement for Medway. The solution to worsening affordability in Medway is to build significantly more houses than has historically been delivered and to treat the proposed requirement as a minimum.

Richborough supports the use of the Standard Method figure for calculating local housing need and forming the basis for determining the housing requirement for the Local Plan. For Medway this is 1,667 dwellings per annum and equates to 28,500 dwellings over the Plan Period to 2040.
The NPPF was updated in July 2018, February 2019, July 2021 and again in September 2023 in order to introduce several new concepts, one of which related to the calculation of housing need. Whilst the objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes was retained, the way of calculating housing need was to be altered with the introduction of the ‘standard method’. Although details of the specifics of the calculation are provided in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), paragraph 61 of the NPPF confirms that the standard method should comprise the ‘minimum’ figure, and states:
“To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals.”
It is clear therefore that there are circumstances whereby a higher figure could be adopted over and above the standard method. The PPG provides further clarification on when it might be appropriate to plan for a higher housing need figure and states (Paragraph ID: 2a-010-20201216):
“The government is committed to ensuring that more homes are built and supports ambitious authorities who want to plan for growth. The standard method for assessing local housing need provides a minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area. It does not attempt to predict the impact that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or other factors might have on demographic behaviour. Therefore, there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates.”
The guidance explains that circumstances where an uplift will be appropriate include, but are not limited to, where growth strategies are in place; strategic level infrastructure improvements are planned; and where an authority agrees to take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities.
It is important therefore to recognise that the need figure generated by the standard methodology should be considered as the minimum starting point in establishing a requirement for the purposes of plan production.
The calculation currently relies on household projections which focus solely on past growth trends and do not include a specific uplift to account for factors that could affect those trends in the future. Where it is likely that additional growth (above historic trends identified by household projections) will occur over the plan period, an appropriate uplift may be applied to produce a higher need figure that reflects the anticipated level of growth. Richborough consider that an uplift to the need figure may be required to allow for the additional employment generated as a result of projects highlighted elsewhere in the Consultation Document.
The third Strategic Objective included in the Consultation Document for example states that Medway Council wish to realise the economic and place-making opportunities associated with the cluster of universities and colleges in Medway and “Build on existing strengths and expertise, such as engineering, energy and creative industries, and raise the profile of key sectors, to attract and develop the jobs of the future”.
Further consideration should also be given to whether there may also be an uplift required to address the historic under delivery in affordable housing, which is covered elsewhere in these representations.
In regard to the timeframes for development plans, Paragraph 22 of the NPPF makes specific reference to this and states:
“Strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15 year period from adoption, to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities, such as those arising from major improvements in infrastructure.”
According to the latest LDS approved by Medway in October 2022, adoption of the Plan is likely to occur in autumn 2025 (leaving limited time for a Main Modifications consultation), which is well into the monitoring year, 2025/2026.
This scenario wouldn’t allow for a full fifteen-year plan period at the point of adoption and the timetable is considered very optimistic in any case.
In light of this, Richborough is of the view that the Plan should look ahead to at least 2040/2041 in order to ensure that the Plan meets the requirements of NPPF paragraph 22.